"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Good for the Goose, not for the Gander

Neverending Audit finds evidence provided by Michael Mann, of non-reproducibility, non-cooperation, and statistical error from Wegman et al.

Update: This was hashed out at the time, sort of, at CA. Except for the part about Wegman being wrong.

4 comments:

JohnMashey said...

Oh, the zingers are piling up...
I'd heaard about Ritson, hadn't seen the comments, had them on the list to track down.

willard said...

Thanks for the attribution, but I think the hat tip belongs to Eli Rabbett. Quite frankly, I don't know what to make of all this. The only observations that I am willing to share for now are these.

Wegman does not look a pure maths thing. Physical decisions seems to come to play. So portraying the Wegman report in all its mathematical purity seems a bit farfetched.

The other observation is that it is quite strange that the mathematical issue relies on this report only.

From these two observations I contend that it's worth a dig. If it's only a math thing, this will have to be played out once and for all. If it's only a math thing, this won't get us farer than other math things. Which is never very far reaching.

Martin said...

Salon had a good story about this, way back when.

Good to see this not being forgotten.

EliRabett said...

If you read to the bottom of McIntyre's post (thanks for pointing it out), he basically shifts ground from statistic to weighting of the bristlecone pines which is kind of typical of his modus operendi